More than 20 years have passed since Japan entered a recession in the mid-1990s, with the bubble burst and changes in the population structure-low birth rate and aging population-acting as catalysts. It is true that Abenomics did manage to stimulate some growth in the Japanese economy, which had continued on a downward trend especially after the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake; however, Japan’s nominal GDP in 2015 is still a meager 500 trillion yen, significantly lower than its GDP of 521 trillion yen in 1997, demonstrating the necessity for large-scale structural reform. Japan’s potential growth rate also illustrates something along the same line. Japan’s potential growth rate reached 4.9% in the late 1980s, and then plummeted to around 2% in 1992 after the bubble burst. In 1994, the figure halved to around 1%, and in 1997, to around 0%. In 2015, it was a mere 0.3%, showing that indeed something more than the hitherto practiced expansive fiscal policy and quantitative easing (QE) is required.
  Thus, this research presumes that the Abenomics growth strategy will accompany structural reform, using legalization as the tool. We first present a general overview of the Abe administration’s growth strategy, then examine its results and challenges, focusing on the four policy issues of business restructuring, corporate governance reform, the 4th industrial revolution, and employment/labor market reform. This research’s final aim is to present policy implications for the Korean government, considering the policy agendas the Korean government is currently facing, such as expanding the private investment, labor market reform, structural reform, the 4th industrial revolution, etc.
  Chapter 2, titled “The Framework of Abenomics Growth Strategy,” covers the background and goal of the Abe administration’s growth strategy. Here we emphasize that Abe’s growth strategy ultimately aims at solving the so-called “three excessives” of the Japanese economy?excessively little investment, excessive regulations, and excessive competition?and fostering new industries. This research divides the Abenomics growth strategy into two stages: the first stage, which consists of the four growth strategies up to the year 2015, focused on promoting the metabolism of industries through regulatory reforms, strategic markets creation, business restructuring, and corporate governance reforms; on the other hand, the second stage, consisting of the 2016 growth strategy, focuses on the fourth industrial revolution and the reform of working patterns.
  Chapter 3, “Business Restructuring under Abenomics,” deals with Japan’s business restructuring under the framework of the Act on Strengthening Industrial Competitiveness (the Industrial Competitiveness Act) that was enacted in 2013. Although the Japanese government’s restructuring policy shifted to a more market-friendly direction in the 1990s, government still does play a role in business restructuring, as is apparent in its expanding and reorganizing of the 1999 Industrial Revitalization Act in 2009 and in 2013, into the Industrial Competitiveness Act. This research also notes that the active business restructuring in the 2000s, such as M&A, was a result of the government’s various efforts at improving the legal and the regulatory environment.
  Chapter 4, “Corporate Governance Reform under Abenomics,” examines the significance of corporate governance reform from Japan’s traditional main bank system, and observes how the Japanese government is approaching the reform. We analyze the government’s efforts to strengthen the internal governance mechanisms, through measures such as strengthening internal audit systems or requesting the appointment of outside directors, and to strengthen institutional investors’ governing function.
  In Chapter 5, “Nurturing the New Industries in Abenomics,” this research looks into the Japanese government’s policy actions to increase productivity and create markets with high growth potential. Internally, Japan faces structural constraints to growth due to its decreasing population, while externally, Western countries including the US and Germany are actively promoting the 4th industrial revolution as a new growth model. Facing such challenges, Japan has been promoting strategies to create new industries, but following the 2011 earthquake and inauguration of the Abe administration in 2012, the focus is being placed on robots, Internet of Things (IoT), AI, etc.?the technological pillars of the 4th industrial revolution.
  Chapter 6, “Abenomics labor market reform,” covers Japan’s policy measures to reform the labor market and examines whether or not they are effective. We focus on the fact that the Abe administration has come to the realization that Japan’s employment customs?which include long-term (or lifetime) employment, seniority wage system, etc.?can no longer properly respond to Japan’s decreasing labor productivity and labor supply. This chapter divides labor reforms under Abenomics into two categories: policies to improve labor market flexibility, such as relaxing the dismissal standards of regular workers, and policies to increase labor supply by utilizing the labor powers of hitherto neglected sectors of the population, such as women, foreigners, and the elderly.
  Finally, in Chapter 7, “Policy Implications,” the outcomes and challenges of the Abenomics growth strategy are compared with Korea’s policy situations. It must be noted that although Korea has not announced a holistic “growth strategy” under such a name, it is promoting a series of policies that are comparable to each section of the Abenomics growth strategy.
  First, key agendas that are being promoted under Abenomics, which include regulatory reform, labor market reform, strategic markets creation, business restructuring, corporate governance reform, and new industries creation, are all critical to a country like Japan with its decreasing population.
  Second, although there is no denying that some government support is necessary to assist companies’ preemptive restructuring, it may be preferable to place more of an emphasis on modifying related laws and regulations.
  Third, in promoting corporate governance reform, Korea could very well refer to Japan’s case, and especially how it secured momentum of its corporate governance reform by amending the Companies Act in June 2014 and introducing the Corporate Governance Code in June 2015.
  Fourth, Korea, like Japan, needs to establish a government-wide national strategy with public-private cooperation, and promote regulatory reforms to foster new industries under the 4th industrial revolution. Fifth, in relations to the labor market reform, both Korea and Japan are failing to show progress in improving labor market flexibility. In this situation, it will be beneficial to try some measures that essentially are preconditions for labor market flexibility, and which are showing some positive results in Japan. Policies to improve labor conditions for irregular workers and allowing various forms of working are examples of this.